I am the owner of the domain OSVISTA.COM. You would probably think "he must really like Windows Vista", followed by "how has Microsoft not sued him for that domain?" Thing is, I bought that domain years before Microsoft announced Vista; I just liked how it sounded. I use the domain for email, and I don't host any Windows related websites. Microsoft has never even contacted me about it, presumably because once they saw the registration date and that I am not using it in a way that conflicts with their trademark, they decided to leave me alone.

As long as you don't deliberately conflict with someone else's trademark, they have a very tough time arguing that they should be given the domain. Combine that with the fact that domain related cases are not heard through the regular court system, but under UDRP, and most companies won't bother.

We already know how to create biodiesel and other fuels from non fossil sources. If we limited their use to critical needs, and had everything else using renewable electric sources, then we probably could do without oil. The biggest challenge appears to be the lack of tar and asphalt for road construction; we'd have to find a workable substitute. For everything else, suitable engineered substitutes exist.

Why is it that literally EVERY physics related article has at least one nut-job who thinks all of the (sane) physicists are wrong, and that his incoherent ramblings are the one true theory of everything.

Figuring out a better way to create and manage passwords is only a stopgap, and a suboptimal solution at best. What we really need is a straightforward and easy way to use client certificates. You should be able to receive a signed client certificate when you pick up your driver's license. You should be able to receive a signed client certificate when you visit your bank. You should be able to receive a signed client certificate at your local library. Certificate in hand, it should be easy to install that certificate on your devices, with a certificate management system that grandma can use.

The technology is already here, it would eliminate so much of this grief, and set the stage for the next level of secure monetary transactions as well.

Microsoft Lightswitch is a great example of just such a tool. Visual Basic is still around, and the Express versions available for free today are better than Visual Basic 1-6 ever were. Mac has been stuck with Objective-C for years, but it looks like Apple is finally addressing that.

Web Programming? Yes, its the spawn of Satan. But if you want to point the blame for that look to Brendan Eich for the monstrosity that is JavaScript, and the idiots that decided that CSS needed to be so alien and broken compared to HTML.

If you did your research, you would know that "maths" is a very recent invention in Great Britain. It only started in the 1970's, and didn't become common until the 1990's. That doesn't change the facts of what I stated, which is that mathematics is not a plural word, and the abbreviation, according to the rules of English as the British themselves define them, is math. This isn't an American vs. British issue, this is about a misunderstanding of the language. Just because it has taken foothold in Britain and some of its former colonies doesn't make it correct.

The abbreviation of the word mathematics is not "maths". Mathematics is not a plural word, rather, it is plurale tantum, which is Latin for in plural form only. The reason for this is that the root word mathematic is not a singular noun, but an adjective. To create the noun, an "s" is added, resulting in the noun mathematics. However, when a word which is plural tantum is abbreviated, the "s" does not come along for the ride.

In short "maths" is the British equivalent of "nucular" and should be avoided by anyone who knows better.

All those protests about HUAWEI - the real reason we scared everyone about them is for precisely the opposite reason than was claimed. HUAWEI is not in the pocket of the NSA, which makes them useless from an espionage standpoint. The problem isn't that their equipment has spyware, it's that it doesn't (as far as the NSA is concerned.)